​Sanctions’ goal is regime change, no matter Cuba or Russia

Obama is lifting Cuba sanctions not because they are morally wrong but due to their failure to deliver a result – which is still regime change, just like in the case of Russia, foreign affairs expert Nebojsa Malic told RT.

RT:Obama said
that the policy of isolation against Havana has failed. Why is
Washington using the very same approach against Moscow
now?

Nebojsa
Malic: Well it is a brilliant piece of cognitive
dissonance really. I must admit that I'm somewhat confused by it
myself, because what he has said about Cuba absolutely stands –
that sanctions don't work, that this has been the wrong policy,
and it is time for it to end, and that is all true.

But note that he said that the sanctions did not result in the
expected outcome, but he did not say that the US government is
giving up the desire to see that outcome. So the goal is still
regime change, only now by other means. And the sanctions are
being lifted not because they were morally wrong or objectionable
or illegal, but because they did not work. And now what is going
to happen is something that they think will work instead. And the
goal is still regime change.

So again, there is a dose of truth and then there is a dose of
sinister programming and agenda behind it that very few people
are going to stop and look at. But the goal is still regime
change, not it’s just trying to figure out how they are going to
go about it.

RT:White House and State Department
spokespersons contradict each other on whether Obama already
signed new anti-Russian bill or not. Is that likely to happen and
what are they based on?

NM: They are based on the fact that Russia has
so far done nothing that Washington demands and the problem is it
is not quite clear what Washington’s demands really are. They are
saying stop the aggression in Ukraine. Well, what aggression? Is
there any evidence into actually any of this going on? No. Quite
the contrary there is an inflow of NATO weapons and personnel
into the country. And quite frankly abysmally belligerent and
criminal behavior of government in Kiev towards civilians that
are technically their own. And so you have a situation in which
these sanctions are threatened on the grounds of nothing at all.

And the so called off-ramp that is being mentioned is unclear.
What is really expected of Moscow – to give Crimea back, to
withdraw the non-existing troops? None of it is being made
specific because the goal is to pressure for regime change inside
Russia – that is the end game of this particular policy. It is
getting rid of Vladimir Putin and his government and putting in
somebody more like Boris Yeltsin.

RT:If the new round of sanctions indeed
follows - how much of a blow will it be to the Russian
economy?

NM: It is truly difficult to say. We have been
seeing all sorts of things happening with the ruble and the
dollar prices and the capital shifting back and forth, and the
Central Bank policies. There is a full on economic war going on
right now, under the current circumstances. What further new
sanctions might do is impossible to project. I do not even think
the architects of these sanctions will know themselves.

And certainly there is plenty of collateral damage. Europe, EU
specifically is suffering tremendous losses from this economic
war. And even the US to some extent is having problems due to
major investments and projects that have been canceled,
especially technology development and oil development.

So it is difficult to say. Certainly the hope by the policy
makers in Washington is that further sanctions will prompt the
Russian economy to collapse to the levels of 1998 and push this
government out of power. How accurate these predictions are I do
not know. I think they are badly mistaken.

RT:Washington reiterated numerous times
that it’s open for dialogue and for a comprehensive decision to
be made – how is that in-line with such moves?

NM: There is no dialogue and you have to bear in
mind that the definition of dialogue in this town is: “do what we
tell you, or else!” That is what is considered a dialogue. It’s
not, “let’s talk this over, let's see what your point of view is,
and let’s come to an understanding.” No, it is “do what you're
told, or else!”

And the ‘or else’ might be sanctions, might be invasion, might be
color revolutions, might be economic sabotage, electronic
sabotage, all sort of things, but there is definitely always an
element of threat in it.

The people in this town do not even talk to each other across the
political divide, let alone talk to other countries on an equal
footing. That is the whole point of the movement called American
imperialism that other countries are there to do what they are
told. And that is considered dialogue.

Obviously there has not been any readiness in the mainstream
American politics to do any of it with even Europeans, who are
technically considered allies as opposed in practice being client
states, let alone Russia. And certainly the people in this
country, the dissidents, the reputable and respected scholars
that have spoken out against this have pillared in the media and
attacked as Putin's apologists, and so on and so forth. So there
is no dialogue, there are only threats.